Pelosi renews call for constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

[IDemo]

Source: RawStory

In a conference call, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told reporters, “We must amend the constitution to fix Citizens United.”

Her latest call to action was spurred by Monday’s Supreme Court decision to overturn Montana’s 1912 law limiting corporate spending in political campaigns based on its 2010 Citizens United ruling. The court’s decision led Montana’s governor Brian Schweitzer (D) and Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger (R) to call for a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision.

Pelosi’s press secretary, Drew Hammill, told Raw Story, “We were hopeful that the Montana case would be an opportunity for the Supreme Court to reconsider their decision in Citizen’s United, but they decided not to.” For Pelosi, that decision means a return to her four-point plan called DARE: disclose, amend, reform and elect.

Pelosi’s colleague, Rep. Keith Ellison, has already been making the rounds to gin up the grassroots support for what will be a long battle to pass an amendment. Pelosi told reporters, “It really has to thunder across the country” for an amendment to pass, but “we have to have disclosure and transparency in order to have a democratic process.”

Read more: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/06/29/pelosi-renews-call-for-constitutional-amendment-to-overturn-citizens-united/

---

[TheWraith]

1. Ridiculous.

You would never, ever, get it through the current Congress, let alone through the 37(!) state legislatures that you would need in order to pass it. You might as well call for an amendment giving every American child a pony.

The only real way to overturn CU is through the Supreme Court. Replace one of the conservative justices with a left-leaning one, then find the right case to re-try it with.

[Scootaloo]

7. Yes, all we need...

Is for Thomas, Scalia, Alito, or Roberts to graciously retire, to make way for a far-left judge, who will squeak through the same congress that would supposedly never pass an amendment like this, and... and.. .I dunno, I guess after that we could all start shitting chocolate ice cream, or take up unicorn rodeo or something?

I support Pelosi 100% here.

[davidpdx]

13. Oh come on, you know you wanted to put the words "drop dead" instead of graciously retire

At least that's how I feel. I think Scalia is probably the one that is likely going to drop dead first.

[Scootaloo]

23. No, actually, I didn't

I try to avoid wishing death on people. It's a "thing."

And no, he'll be the last to go. "Stupid" and "hate" are both surprising preservatives.

[Woody Woodpecker]

22. I'd rather all 4 die of heart attacks before their next term starts...

and Obama will have his way to stack the courts with the left wing, leaving Kennedy alone to deal with the right-wing matters.

[Enrique]

12. correct this is a long-term battle

it will involve candidates running on the issue and winning. It will need to be a major issue in the 2016 democratic primaries, it will need to become a litmus test for Democratic candidates.

You are right of course that it won't pass this Congress, we don't even have to speculate, they blocked the Disclose Act. And Obama isn't fully on board, he backed of the executive order regarding federal contractors. So this will require a different Congress and a different president.

But it has to start somewhere, it starts with people getting the ball rolling.

[Scuba]

16. We count on you to be the first to give up.

[freshwest]

33. Woot! But a victory in Wisconsin, here's to that majority.

[robinlynne]

20. and yet there is a movemnet all over the country saying there are several other ways.

move to amend, anyone? 230 cities have already adopted it. After cities come states.

[zbdent]

2. First clue the "fix was in" was

the fact that the Right didn't complain too much about how the unions could do what corporations are doing, hiding behind the anonymity of "freedom of speech" ...

They did complain, somewhat, but they also knew the troops (Repug governors) were going to sever the jugular when it came to unions.

[cstanleytech]

3. Why dont the unions use the same tactic? Use the same violation of the first amendment

approach that the corporations used to fight against the anti union laws. Wouldnt that work?

[struggle4progress]

4. It'll take a lotta time and hard work, but an amendment on corporate power

is obviously essential now

[Zyzafyx]

5. Cut her some slack

The GOP wants Constitutional amendments deciding when you can shit.

[Beartracks]

8. Specifically, when *women* can shit.

Men should be able to shit wherever they want.

And obviously...


=================

[chknltl]

6. All things considered good timing.

With the Montana decision fresh in the minds of the electorate, and an outright despisal of Chief Justice Roberts among the republican electorate, add in an upcoming election, this might be something to watch on more than one level imo.

[freshwest]

9. K & R

[BumRushDaShow]

10. K&R

Need to start the process right now. Research, get the right language in there, and have it ready to go at any time.

The hope is that we can wake people up enough to vote, get the voter-suppression laws out of way so the Democrats can reverse the tide in the state gubernatorial races and legislatures, and then move with it.

[bl968]

11. Amendments

The amendment we need... Solves the whole mess.

Only individual living human beings are to be considered people with all the rights, privileges, and duties attendant thereof under the U.S. Constitution.

Another Amendment

Political Contributions are only permitted to be received by the campaign directly from the individual who is the source of the funds and they may not be given on their behalf by any corporation, organizations, or groups of any kind either directly or indirectly.

Course that would probably kill Act Blue as well, but I think the benefit to the country would be worth the ultimate cost.

We could also do...

All elections for federal office shall be funded by money from the Federal Election Commission only, who may demand that political advertising be provided at no cost by the custodians of the public airwaves of the United States.

Then we have...

Healthcare is a human right, and shall be provided as a service of the United States Government

and

In order to remain competitive all Americans are entitled upon qualification based upon their grades to a public college education

[BBGC]

15. I think there needs to be some wording

To make abundantly clear this is only intended to impact corporations. Talk of "only humans" getting rights.... next thing you know, this will be interpreted to strike down laws pertaining to animals/environment.

[bl968]

21. Wording is correct.

Animals are not entitled to the rights of persons, Freedom of speech, association, religion, etc; they are entitled to protection against abuse.

[onenote]

25. How did you feel about the outcome of the Pentagon Papers case? Or libel actions against

Hustler or laws passed to censor books and movies (made by corporations, shown by theaters, televisions stations, Internet sites, etc), and sold in bookstores/websites that are owned by corporations?

For that matter, how do you feel about a law censoring Democratic Underground, which is a corporate entity, not an individual human being?


On the other hand, an amendment targeted at the political contribution process is a good idea.

[kitt6]

14. Nancy is a thoughtful

intelligent and classy woman. Attractive too!

[Vincardog]

17. No congress needs to pass a public finance law and state that the SCOTUS does not have

jurisdiction in the matter. The Court operates under the limits Congress imposes.

[Sgent]

19. Bleh

I always thought these types of proposals are a bit questionable at best. Just because republicans have been pushing them, doesn't make them legal.

Congress has the authority to regulate jurisdiction, but SCOTUS is still the high court and I doubt they can remove them from the loop at some point -- regardless, the person must have the ability to have their case heard / appealed to an Article III judge.

The first amendment "and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." has been held to eliminate the possibility of eliminating jurisdiction for a specific issue (ie flag burning) from the entire court system.

[Vincardog]

24. The way I read the US Constitution:

Article III - The Judicial Branch Note

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

Section 2 - Trial by Jury, Original Jurisdiction, Jury Trials

(The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.) (This section in parentheses is modified by the 11th Amendment.)

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact,

with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Congress has the power They only require the political will

[Nye Bevan]

27. Utter nonsense.

Congress can prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing laws it passes simply by claiming that "the SCOTUS does not have jurisdiction in this matter"?

Do I really need to spell out how ridiculous this idea is?

[Vincardog]

30. What does "with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Mean to you?

[Dalai_1]

18. K&R n/t

[Nye Bevan]

26. "Notwithstanding the First Amendment to this Constitution,

Congress is permitted to make laws that abridge the freedom of speech, or of the press, when the speech in question refers to candidates or political parties in Federal or State elections, and takes place within the period of 180 days immediately preceding such election".

I think this is the kind of amendment you would need; basically, you need to nullify the First Amendment for political speech in the run up to an election. (I personally would not support this, BTW).

[progressoid]

28. Sounds good. Too bad it ain't gonna happen.

[joycejnr]

29. It might be more realistic to...

use the provision in the Constitution that calls for impeachment for "bad behavior."

It would be slightly less difficult than a Constitutional amendment and also dependent upon the party make-up in Congress...otherwise, we have to wait for the 5 turkeys to die, one by one, and some of us (me) don't have the time.

[Teamster Jeff]

31. Nothing wrong with Pelosi stirring the pot a little

[pewestlake]

32. Many Amendment Proposals

The debate over what kind of amendment to propose, if any, has been gathering steam and pitting the ideas of a lot of good, well-meaning people against one another since the Citizens United ruling was handed down in January 2010. There are a lot of mistakes being made in most of the approaches to amending the structure of our federal system but the debate is a healthy response. The only proposal that is always counterproductive is the "it's too hard so don't try" proposal.

More than 80% of the voting public is against Citizens United and favors overturning it. (That's higher than the support for public financing just within the democratic party.) We don't have to complicate things. It doesn't matter if voters know the technocratic particulars of legal personhood and money as speech, they just know Citizens United went too far in a system that was already broken to begin with. They want the swamp drained. They just don't exactly know how.

Debating specific language is an educational tool for harried voters who want to be better informed. The ongoing debate has been taking place among interested parties sporadically in blogs and chat rooms, bulletin boards and all the various hit-and-run social media venues. The Amendment Gazette has been created to explore and analyze every proposal and facilitate debate on this subject as a tool for education and discovering means of achieving consensus. (I believe the Human Rights Amendment has already achieved that consensus but, since nobody knows about it yet, I haven't heard all the arguments against.)

Some grass roots organizations have devoted some resources to this cause but Move To Amend is the best organized and most focused. Their amendment proposal is also the best of the proposals being taken seriously both in and outside of the beltway. If you want to help with this project, Move To Amend is the best place to start.